Why realistic graphics matters to games
polycounter lvl 6
So I wrote a blog post as to why realistic graphics are important to games. Pick it apart and let me know what you think.
https://elicitedresponse.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/games-and-graphics/
https://elicitedresponse.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/games-and-graphics/
Replies
I've had emotional connections with all manner of abstract pixels messes. Being an old gamer I think its easier to appreciate games without the need for a realistic experience. A game really doesn't need to be realistic to allow an emotional connection. Hell, some games didn't even need graphics, text based adventures (Zork, etc)
I think you are forgetting a huge factor in many games that don't rely on realism, and that is the players imagination. As a book help suggest scenarios for a reader, games can help trigger players imaginations and sometimes allowing the imagination to fill in the gaps is far better than dictating a scene in hyper realism.
Sorry, I just feel your statement is a sweeping generalisation and that games need to be a realistic visual experience. Which isn't true at all. My 2 cents.
It's also why I began saying that games are an art, designed for emotions, not just to be fun.
Also why I ended with this:
"Graphics add to the experience of gameplay, just as narrative does, making for a better more cohesive product. Saying that graphics are meaningless in games is to the detriment of games, and the progress they have made as an art-form."
What led you to think that I was talking about all games?
"Graphics add to the experience of gameplay"
Graphics don't add to gameplay at all in many games. They add to the experience, but not the gameplay.
For me graphics are not important in a lot of games. They help yes, and if a game is trying to be realistic then good graphics really add to the experience. But realism its never essential. Gameplay is by far the most important thing in most games, in some cases narrative depending on the genre.
"If graphics did not matter to the game, you should be able to play this game with plain colourless boxes and plain colourless environments to achieve the same end goal of enjoying the game in the same way, and to that I would say, is simply impossible"
I can tell you now that I've played tech demos and "grey boxed" games and had as much fun as I would if the boxes were realistic characters.
Sorry if I sound argumentative but i'm dead against anything that states "Games need good graphics", which is kinda what i'm getting from this. If you are talking about a certain type of game you should say so, which is why I suggested the title change.
I had made a thread 2 months ago where I put all my story telling into PS1 visuals. I had no problems translating all my ideas using only very few polygons. In fact, it was quite the opposite.
The less time I spent focusing on tech details, the more I was able to come up with assets and piece them together in creating an environment.
I know people disagreed with me but I still believe in this statement. I did not see a difference between something that has to look photorealistic, and my idea of working with fewer polygons.
The artstyle of making each scene was the most important.
I sometimes feel that if a game is realistic, it can take away from the immersion into the game. Because of uncanny valley, because of me wanting to explore the beauty etc etc... However a pixel game, or a 2d side scrolling game, or a greybox game as Stinger mentioned, can get me into the game a lot more because of how the gameplay is the key to a fun game.
A lot of games that employ 'good graphics' have started out as a greybox environment, and have worked just fine, with lots of fun to play. It is not impossible.
What you are saying, that it is impossible, is an opinion, and not a fact.
Graphics CAN add to the game. But it is not gameplay.
Narrative can add to great gameplay.
Having realistic graphics can help if the game is trying to be a realistic game, but then there's a lot more that needs to go in there as well. realistic physics, realistic movements, realistic collisions etc. Art, in that respect, is just a vehicle to make it feel more realistic and to help immersion into the realism of the game. Not the gameplay in itself...
I'm not also saying that photo-real graphics are important to every game, again, it's what to developer wants you to feel as a player, I'm simply saying that photo-realism is a powerful and essential means to doing so if the developer choices to do so and applies it correctly.
You don't need to worry, I'm taking it as feedback. I'm not saying games 'need' good graphics. I am saying photo-realism is an essential tool to achieve a goal of eliciting emotion. I was hoping that I made emotion the clear factor, and not fun, I may need to rework it to make it more clear.
Thank you for the response.
That may be your chosen art style but by choosing that art style you were sacrificing narrative in the finer details, your gun has less history conveyed than a more detailed one can have.
Let's take this to the extreme with your shotgun asset there. Lets remove all texture from it and make it black to represent the dominant colour to better identify the gun than a neutral grey.
Yes it's still a gun, but it has to history, no story. There are no scratches to convey the means of which to owner (or previous owners) treated that. There is no dirt, to grime, no oils to convey the upkeep of it, or the locality of which it has been kept.
As the saying goes, the devil is in the details, and the details can unleash a story never written for but has still been conveyed.
That is the purpose of "A highly detailed environment can express more story than one with no detail"
Again, my post is about emotion, not just fun.
Thank you for the response.
What you are saying, that it is impossible, is an opinion, and not a fact.
Thank you for the response.
But even if you did that, I still wouldn't agree. Minecraft is in no way realistic, but it still commands emotions of its player base. Fear from the sounds of a nearby enemy. Joy from seeing your finished creation of blocks. Anger when someone blows up said creation.
Also, as you say throughout your article, games are art. Art is subjective and what one person finds realistic, or even just pleasing, another will not. Just because a game does not trigger emotions in you, doesn't mean it wont in someone else.
" I am saying photo-realism is an essential tool to achieve a goal of eliciting emotion." - Ori and the Blind Forest is in no way photo realism, but it's the number one game as of late that has got me emotional.
This war of mine has a very sketchy illustration theme, realistic, but not photo-realistic.....
Also quoting your own writing in between paragraphs as if you were interviewing someone is probably debatable.
Overall I found the article somewhat hard to follow, probably because I don't see anything wrong with the statement "realistic graphics are not needed for a game", which is not the same thing as saying that there are absolutely no uses for them.
On one hand, there was the case during the 1990s when games like Mortal Kombat and Doom were almost deemed a public scare because of how detailed the violence had gotten. But you also had another game, Night Trap, which was even more real but also elicited the same response "too graphic for the public".
Even with the pixelated sprites vs the live-action footage, what they have in common is how convincing they were at describing violence.
Someone could make a low poly game about violence and still scare people if they took the time to depict the actual horrors that goes into mutilating and killing people. Thrill Kill is actually an example of this, going as far as being rated AO even though a game like Grand Theft Auto 5 is more realistic but considered tamer by the ESRB.
And that it is just 'games' and not what kind of games that is meant. 'Games' in general is quite a wide range of different styles, graphical requirements, emotions, gameplay etc.
Nicolii said: None of us have said that photo-realism doesn't serve a purpose. I think what we're having problem with is the fact that we don't know what you mean when you say 'realistic' graphics. As what Slipsius said. And for what kind of 'games' that you're referring to.
"Realistic" = photo-real. You try your best to have high fidelity graphics that are as close to real life as possible. A good example is Battlefield 1.
"Realism" = Making the level look and feel as if it could be a real place, despite the art direction. Going back to Ori and the Blind Forest. It's stylized, but it's also believable. Lush forests. Water. You can believe it's a real place, without it look like real life.
I will come back tomorrow into this discussion when I've had sleep and this text editor is no longer filled with red squiggly lines because of my temporary inability to type properly.
For now, thank you all for you feedback. I shall return!
I'm sure a lot of people would agree: the top scenario had waaaaaaaaay more emotional impact than the bottom.
This is a great example, watch out for repetitive phrasing.
Some other things that jump out:
"Graphics add to the overall quality of the game even when they don't affect gameplay."
Shorten, cut, simplify
So, if you said "A highly detailed environment can express more story than one with no detail" I'd agree in most cases. But when I hear detail I don't think photorealistic. I think of thoughtful worldbuilding. Which you can do with any art style. There are always ways to add detail to the world. And a million different sorts of detail, outside of photorealistic detail.
slipsius said:
"Realism" = Making the level look and feel as if it could be a real place, despite the art direction. Going back to Ori and the Blind Forest. It's stylized, but it's also believable. Lush forests. Water. You can believe it's a real place, without it look like real life.
I'd go even further and possibly denote as an "Immersive" descriptor.
Overwatch is a perfect example of effective stylized art. The art direction uses realism as a reference, but it seems not as a restriction.
Just my 2 bob.
I prefer a solid artistic direction and a coherent visual style then juste going fully photoreal.
Or if you wanna go photoreal, use scanned assets like in Battlefront! This game looked so good.
I can raise a few pages of artistic disagreement as well as a page and a half of technical reasons why it can make sense to go with a stylistic approach over a realistic approach but honestly I think it would fall on deaf ears. It's one of those debates that people pick their camp and tend to stick to it.
I think it would be very interesting from both the artistic and technical standpoint
Realistic or not.
Story, style, animation, music & sound have to build a unit.
Once this fit, it can achieve anything.
Doesn't matter if film or game.
This said, the commenter you referring to is right, you are wrong.
Well, sorry. But I really do think that you missed the point.
If you see realistic as anything more than a few pixels - well than I am with you.
Sure, but that was not due to the graphics but due the character building beforehand. There are other COD characters that were really missed when they died. That guy hardly had a role, you could not save him from dying to a bomb he planted, but there was a weak connection and right at the start of the game.
The most shocking and strongly impactful game ive played was Vampires Dawn, a RPG maker game, granted that was a long time ago but the graphics were very simplistic even then. The minimalism and taking away of anything that is not explicitly needed really sells strong concepts and leaves room for interpretation, much like a book or a story would.